I am not sure what your point is - Austin never put guys over cleanly, Taker/Rock couldn't beat Austin,...? In storyline, all those wins made sense. Think of Cena and the Nexus. How many of Cena's wins made no sense? This generally wasn't the case here. When Austin was champ, Vince was trying to screw him over so a lot of dq wins and such made sense as the idea wasn't to beat Austin but to beat down Austin. As for Austin's personal life and being greatest, you really want to start down that path? Flair is a douche, HBK was a prima-donna, Hogan screwed over guys weekly. They all have personal issues but for characters, Austin probably is the greatest.

Hmm so we dont mention house shows........probably because Austin didnt wrestle on many of them.
The Rock and Undertaker havent publicly been known to assault women either.
The Rock and Undertaker have always appeared to play ball when it came time to doing the honours, Austin has a long history of refusing to do jobs, put talent over or follow creative directives. This isnt hating on Austin, this is stating facts.

Hmm so we dont mention house shows........probably because Austin didnt wrestle on many of them.
The Rock and Undertaker havent publicly been known to assault women either.
The Rock and Undertaker have always appeared to play ball when it came time to doing the honours, Austin has a long history of refusing to do jobs, put talent over or follow creative directives. This isnt hating on Austin, this is stating facts.

Who cares that Undertaker and Rock was doing more honours and putting talent over?? They were shitty anyways.

Following creatice directives and so on. Austin is a royal king in WWE he can do whatever he wants.

Austin did shit on Rock and Undertaker but he still get cheered. He owned WWE and did what he wanted. He owned you all.

Who cares that Undertaker and Rock was doing more honours and putting talent over?? They were shitty anyways.

Following creatice directives and so on. Austin is a royal king in WWE he can do whatever he wants.

Austin did shit on Rock and Undertaker but he still get cheered. He owned WWE and did what he wanted. He owned you all.

That's the facts for all of you.

Austin won the last WZ tourney, there is no bias against him. If there is any it's only because he's the ray rice of WWE and should be in jail. Secondly, yes Austin > Rock and taker, still doesn't change the fact he'll never be a misawa or Hogan.

So using the OP's logic.... wouldn't Bret Hart be the greatest of all time? afterall he beat Austin in every profile match they had

Seriously I would put both Austin and Rock over Taker. Taker has never at any point in his career been the top #1 star in the company. His longevity as the #4 or #5 guy at any given time from 1991-2010 makes some assume that he is on that same elite group as Austin/Rock/Hogan... whilst hes a notch below on the legends pedetstal IMO. (He'd still generally rank high of course).

Takers star may have shone a lot longer, but didn't shine as bright.

Between Austin and Rock... I'd say Austin nicks it. He helped transform the industry in the late 90s.... perhaps only Hogan made a bigger impact than that in the mid 80s.
Whilst Rock gets the living legend treatment with all his WWE appearences (and even matches) this past 3 years or so.... Austins relations with WWE have been on-off... even frosty at times.... and the WWE of course don't tend to showcase stars of yesteryear unless they can make money out of them in the present.